enter image description here

and together with the 30-days and 60-days numbers

\begin{array}{| r | r |} \hline \hline \text {Metric} & \text {30 days in Beta} & \text{60 days in Beta} & \text{90 days in Beta}\\ \hline \text {Q per day} & 5.1 & 5.3 & 5.4\\ \text{% answered} & \text {85%} & \text {84%} & \text {80%}\\ \text{avid users} & 38 & 48 & 54\\ \text {total users} & 473 & 730 & 981\\ \text {Engaged users %(*)} & N/A & 33\text{%} & 34\text{%} \\ \text {answer ratio} & 1.9 & 1.8 & 1.8\\ \text {Visits/day} & 238 & 202 & 192\\ \hline \end{array}

$\Big[$(*) "Engaged Users" are those that do not have reputation $1$ or $101$, i.e. those that had at count day performed some reputation-affecting activity on the site (I count out also the $101$'s because the $100$ points are SE-registration bonus if they are active on other sites). I decided to show "engaged" rather than "unengaged" users, since all other metrics in the table have the association "larger value = better".$\Big]$

"Stable or stagnant?" summarizes the situation... Perhaps the slowing increase of the "Avid Users" metric, together with the "% Answered" metric reaching the alert threshold of $80$%, push the answer towards "stagnant". But even if this is the case, I believe we should approach it as "stagnated" rather than "stagnant". Because it's up to us.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Users and Q go up, thats the most important metric. Answers become mere relevant now. Also: is there a metric on "non-avid" users? I feel more of that sort lately. $\endgroup$
    – FooBar
    Feb 17, 2015 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ @FooBar Total Users (-) Avid Users. Users go up at a constant rate also, ~8 new registrations per day. I will also count the registered users with no reputation-affecting activity, as I did in the previous posts. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2015 at 23:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Partially related news: we just had our 1000th user. $\endgroup$
    – FooBar
    Feb 20, 2015 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ How does this compare with takeup curves for other successful SE sites? $\endgroup$
    – tohster
    Feb 23, 2015 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ @tohster If you go to Area 51 and choose a site, we will find information "at the end of beta this side had..." and you will see the same metrics as above (except "engaged users"). The problem is that you do not know how many days "end of beta" means for each site, and I doubt that except of SE staff, anyone else has access to such historical material (i.e. "what was the status when site XX was 90 days in Beta". etc). In any case, the information in Area 51 can give you an idea of what constitutes "level of operations deemed safe to graduate a site", irrespective of how many days did it take. $\endgroup$ Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12
  • $\begingroup$ @AlecosPapadopoulos thanks. I suppose it's hard to really estimate when "network effects" kick in, and they do so at different times for different sites, so maybe there's less value to the time-series comparison than I anticipated $\endgroup$
    – tohster
    Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .